Even more replies

[carolynwhite2]

> 3.8.1.1 Squibs (80)

> Carolyn:
Does anyone think that a good deal of 3.5 Bloodlines and Inheritance 
should actually be put with 3.8.1 Magical ability? 

Dot:
I'm not in favour, though we could shift Squibs to 3.5.2.2 under 
Bloodlines and Inheritance. That would leave 3.8 Magic really for 
discussion of all things magical. 

Carolyn:
Happy to do this - anyone disagree?

**********************

KathyW:

Just off the cuff, should we keep any issues that can be resolved 
just by going to the Lexicon, or should I code as if it doesn't 
exist? I recall someone else was removing posts that contained 
information easily found elsewhere.

Carolyn:
Code on merit; if the Lexicon has contributed something extra, well 
and good. Mostly people seem to quote the Lexicon just to confirm a 
canon point, which doesn't add anything much, IMO.

*****************************

Ginger:

Harry/Ginny: 14
Harry/Herm:29
Harry/Cho: 11
Harry/other:1 (Fleur)
Ron/Herm: 59
Ron/Fleur: 1
Ron/other: 1 (forgot to write down whom)
Herm/Viktor: 11
Herm/Draco: 4
Herm/other: 1 (GL)

Do you think any of my kept categories should be pared some 
more, or should they stand until the next review? Along these lines, 
do you think that once we have coded the rest of our 100,000 or so 
that there would be a use for H/H and H/R subheadings? Just 
something to put on the back burner. There's no need now.

Carolyn:
I think you have done an amazing job Ginger. Really put us all to  
shame for treating this section in such a cavalier way. We are all 
very sorry (glares around at people).

I actually think it would be helpful to put in the subheadings now, 
if you like. It would make subsequent coding simpler surely? Perhaps 
we should compromise on three initial categories, as follows:

Harry +
Ron +
Herm +

Would you like me to do this?

Ginger:
The (in)famous shipping wars. I kept quite a bit of 
the beginning of that. Towards the middle and end, it got pretty 
darn repetitive. I only kept what was good there. This was where 
many OT posts occured. I again assumed people could thread if they 
so chose.

Carolyn:
That sounds ok - it's just a question of preserving some of the 
history of the site, the interaction between various well-known 
posters, and the position they took on things. I think people will be 
interested. I go a bit easy on the general TBAY for the same reason.

*******************
KathyK:
I know early on I took a look at the Dursleys and now I've gone 
through the general heading 1.2.11. It had 26 posts, I propose 
axing the main heading from 16 of those. Most just need to be 
recoded to the proper sub-category, ie Weasleys. 

Some thinngs to consider with this category. Posts coded to 
specific families, again like the Weasleys: Do we keep the 
individual character codes as well? Some posts deal solely with the 
interaction of Percy and the Twins, for instance. Does this get 
coded to Weasleys under Group Dynamics *and* to F&G and Percy?

Carolyn:
The best thing is to leave the character codes well alone, and just 
concentrate on the Family dynamic group that you are dealing with. 
This is because lots of other people have been through the characters 
by now, and decided what they want to keep and what to chuck, so the 
character code should be mainly there for a reason. [Not all 
characters have been done yet, so this won't always be the case, but 
Weasleys have been done, as have muggles].

********************
 Dot:
Actually... I've been wondering for a while whether we need a
category for the final showdown between Harry and Voldy. It might
mean a lot of rearranging, but it could be useful for nice ideas
that have nowhere else to go - would it cut down a lot on the
Voldemort and Harry categories?

Anne:
Oooo, yes. It could go among the predictions, I suppose, since it's
too broad for DD's or Voldemort's agendas an may well include Harry's
agenda should he form one in HBP.

Carolyn:
Boyd/Barry - what do you reckon about this ? I think predictions 
would be the best place for it, if anywhere.

Personally, I am not wild about the idea, but will go along with it 
if lots of you are in favour. The reason is that a lot of the ideas 
about the final showdown really relate to other matters - eg 
possession theory, or just plain old, vanilla-flavour good vs evil 
etc.

*****************************
Anne:

And have we set any policy yet for orphan Acronym categories? I
recall two under Harry that were the result of some person requesting
one for people who like him -- two acronyms were generated in reply,
which were never used again. Are we keeping every single acronym for
posterity or chopping the dead end ones?

Carolyn:
I'd like to keep them all for a while yet, and then finally see what 
gets coded to what acronym. Some that I thought wouldn't be used at 
all have gathered a surprising number of posts.